Phyllis Schlafly

Pyllis Schlafly had David Noebel, founder of Summit Ministries, on her Eagle Forum Live radio program on Monday to talk about the ongoing threat of communism to America and the world. When a listener called in to complain that communist-hunter Joseph McCarthy is now “demonized” in schools, Schlafly and Noebel agreed that McCarthy was, in fact, a “hero”:

Caller: I remember learning in school about McCarthyism, and they demonized him, essentially, is what they did. And probably he was more of a hero than he was a villain. So I just wanted to get you guys’ take on that. Thanks.

Schlafly: Well, plenty of us thought he was a hero. What about you, David Noebel?

Noebel: I think he was a hero. Now look, I was born in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Remember, he was from Appleton, Wisconsin, just 20 miles away. He was a hero.

Later in the program, Noebel warned that the central tenets of communism have been “nearly fulfilled” in the United States today:

Noebel: If you read the manifesto, the Communist Manifesto, written in 1848, Marx and Engels come out with no God, no private property, no family – traditional family – no inheritance, graduated income tax, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. In fact, if you read the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto, you’ll be surprised at how we have nearly moved into every one of those areas. And later on, about 1958, Cleon Skousen came out with a book called “The Naked Communist,” and he listed 45 goals in 1958 of the communists and today we have nearly fulfilled every one of them. So people say, ‘This can’t happen.’ But it’s happening right in front of us. Right in front of us, and we can’t even…we just don’t seem to see it.

Eagle Forum president Phyllis Schlafly today applauded a Canadian court for ruling that the government does not have to recognize polygamous marriages, which she used to make an argument against marriage equality for gays and lesbians:

The Canadian courts have legalized same-sex marriage. Will they legalize polygamy, too? After all, if consenting adults should be able to marry anybody they like, then why should same-sex marriage be allowed but not polygamy?

Many libertarians now insist that government should get out of the business of marriage, and not prohibit same-sex marriage. But if government lets everyone do what they like, then that would presumably include allowing polygamy. This issue was presented to an appellate court in British Columbia, a province of Canada. And it delivered a resoundingly pro-marriage decision, and upheld Canada’s 121-year ban on polygamy.

The Court held that “the institution of monogamous marriage [is] a fundamental value in Western society from the earliest of times.” Its 335-page opinion cited numerous ways in which polygamy causes harm to society, from higher rates of abuse to greater emotional problems, to underachievement by the children in schools. The Court traced the history of monogamous marriage between one man and one woman back to the ancient world, observing that from 600 B.C. to the 500s A.D. “marriage was understood as a union between a man and a woman presumptively for life” and that “by the ninth century, Byzantine emperors had decreed polygamy a capital offence.”

The Court pointed out that in the United States, in the mid-1800s, “Polygamy and slavery were considered to be among the ‘twin relics of barbarism,’” and that the American “Congress has ‘the right and the duty to prohibit’ this ‘odious institution.’” Those principles were established by the Republican Party platform of 1856. An appeal of this recent polygamy decision is expected eventually to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. That court previously established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage so no one knows what it will do.

But the decision Schlafly just praised actually makes the case why the legalization of same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy.

In the ruling, the judge answers Schlafly’s question “why should same-sex marriage be allowed but not polygamy?” He argues that monogamous same-sex marriage does not lead to polygamy “because committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage” and dismisses Schlafly’s claim as an “alarmist view” that “misses the whole point,” as “the doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage”:

[M]ore importantly, this line reflects, again, the pre-eminent place that the institution of monogamous marriage takes in Western culture and, as we have seen, Western heritage over the millennia. When all is said, I suggest that the prohibition in s. 293 is directed in part at protecting the institution of monogamous marriage. And let me here recognize that we have come, in this century and in this country, to accept same-sex marriage as part of that institution. That is so, in part, because committed same-sex relationships celebrate all of the values we seek to preserve and advance in monogamous marriage.

The alarmist view expressed by some that the recognition of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage will lead to the legitimization of polygamy misses the whole point. As Maura Strassberg, Professor of Law at Duke University Law School, points out in “Distinctions of Form or Substance: Monogamy, Polygamy and Same-Sex Marriage” (1997) North Carolina L.R. 1501 at 1594, the doctrinal underpinnings of monogamous same-sex marriage are indistinguishable from those of heterosexual marriage as revised to conform to modern norms of gender equality. This counters, as well, the argument advanced by many, that “in this day and age” when we have adopted expansive views of acceptable marriage units and common law living arrangements, the acceptance of polygamy, or at least the abandonment of its criminal prohibition, is the next logical step. This is said in the context of the sentiment often expressed that the “State has no business in the bedrooms of the Nation”. Here, I say it does when in defence of what it views is a critical institution - monogamous marriage - from attack by an institution - polygamy - which is said to be inevitably associated with serious harms.

Bachmann: As a young woman I read a lot, I was a big reader my whole life, and I loved reading Phyllis Schlafly, she is just smart as a whip.

Ryan Dobson: Who started off as a homemaker and a mom, and then had a law career.

Bachmann: And who also taught her children how to read at home, she did that, she was self-taught in many ways and she was very interested in national security, as I am, and defense issues, but also very cognizant on financial issues.

And also Bev LaHaye, Marcus and I were brand new newlyweds and I got in our mailbox a cassette tape back in the cassette tape days from Bev LaHaye, talking about where our nation was at. I listened to it, and she was trying to pull the alarm on the threats to the family, like Dr. Dobson was doing, so I joined Concerned Women for America, that was the inception, and started getting materials from her, from Phyllis Schlafly, from Dr. Dobson. Over the course of the years, I’ve poured all of these great women and Dr. and Shirley Dobson into my life, and they’ve really been my teachers.

LaHaye, whose husband Tim is best known for writing the Left Behind series and for his attacks on gays, Roman Catholics and “the Illuminati,” still chairs CWA and has a long history of Religious Right activism. She started CWA because she “knew the feminists’ anti-God, anti-family rhetoric did not represent her beliefs, nor those of the vast majority of women,” and also outlined the “biblical worldview” in politics that Bachmann often talks about: “America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.” According to LaHaye, conservative Christians need to enter politics in order to “stand up against the wiles of the devil.”

Not only does LaHaye have harsh words for feminists and people “who do not use the Bible to guide” their political lives, but also doesn’t take kindly to gays and lesbians, writing in a CWA mailer: “[Homosexuals] want their depraved ‘values’ to become our children’s values. Homosexuals expect society to embrace their immoral way of life. Worse yet, they are looking for new recruits!”

With her role models holding such extreme views, it is no wonder Bachmann turned out to be one of the most far-right figures in contemporary politics.

Michele Bachmann yesterday picked up the support of the person she called “the most important woman in the United States in the last one hundred years,” Phyllis Schlafly. The Des Moines Register reports that the anti-feminist leader and head of Eagle Forum urged Iowa caucus-goers to back Bachmann:

In a written statement, Schlafly says: “Most important, Michele has the courage to be a leader among her peers. She is a real champion in speaking up for values we care about. Michele is a woman of faith and the mother of a beautiful family. She has a 100 percent pro-life record and is a strong supporter of traditional marriage.”

…

“If I were an Iowa voter, I would be making plans right now to cast my vote for Michele Bachmann for president on January 3. I hope you will take advantage of this golden opportunity to support a candidate we can all be proud of.”

Schlafly said conservatives don’t want the media to choose their candidate, “or tell us we must choose one of the two who currently lead in the polls.”

Bachmann praised Schalfly at the Eagle Forum Collegians 2011 Summit and even awarded her the Citizens United Lifetime Achievement Award at CPAC earlier this year. During a conference call with tea party members, Bachmann described Schlafly as “my heroine and my example as a forerunner” along with “my dear mentor and the person that I hope to be some day”:

Yesterday, the Respect for Marriage Act, legislation that will repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 vote, naturally spurring outrage among Religious Right activists. The vote was not a surprise to conservative groups, who told activists to be ready to fight the bill on the floor of the Senate.

Focus on the Family’s political arm CitizenLink blasted the “ironically labeled the ‘Respect for Marriage Act’” and the Thomas More Society warned of the “great legal problems, great confusion” and the “actual human beings who will be hurt” if DOMA is no more.

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins told activists that if the Respect for Marriage Act passes, “your tax dollars go to pay for the federal benefits and subsidies of gay couples” because liberals wanted to “award” marriage “to a small, vocal and already well off special interest group” and consequently cause “harm to society”:

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee passed S.598, Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) bill that would completely eradicate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the protections it affords taxpayers and the majority of state’s voters who have decided to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The misnomer medal of the month might have to be awarded early! S.598, the misleadingly titled “Respect for Marriage Act” not only disrespects American’s across the country who want to protect traditional marriage--and have done as much in the 31 states which have passed statewide referendums in favor of marriage--it will also require your tax dollars go to pay for the federal benefits and subsidies of gay couples, irrespective of where they live, who have gotten “married” in 6 states that allow it.

Marriage is not some prize that liberals can award to a small, vocal and already well off special interest group. Marriage between one man and one woman was created prior to the formation of any governments and is given benefits by governments because it uniquely contributes to a productive society. Trying to change the definition to fit some misguided concept can only cause harm to society.

Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum lamented that if DOMA is repealed, states that don’t legalize same-sex marriage will be “forced to recognize and subsidize another state’s objectionable definition of marriage,” urging activists to make sure the Respect for Marriage Act isn’t another “item from the radical liberal wish list” that is attached to the National Defense Authorization Act:

As you might have heard, the liberal Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill shamefully misnamed the "Respect for Marriage Act" (H.R. 1116, S. 598), which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), today by a straight party line vote. All 10 Democrats voted Yes and all 8 Republicans voted No.

…

Now that six states have legalized same-sex marriage, in many cases by judicial or legislative fiat, overriding the express will of the people of those states, DOMA is more essential than ever to ensure that states choosing to protect traditional marriage are not forced to recognize and subsidize another state’s objectionable definition of marriage.

…

We are hearing some reports from Capitol Hill that liberals in the Senate are considering introducing the bill as an amendment to the Department of Defense (DOD) Authorization Bill.

As outrageous as this sounds, it is becoming a liberal tradition. This would be the third consecutive year that the liberal Senate has attached an item from the radical liberal wish list to this bill that is so important to our nation's defense, knowing that our legislators respect our military and don’t like to oppose defense-related authorization bills. Last year, they attempted to attach a repeal of the 1993 law prohibiting homosexuals from openly serving in the military, and the year before that, liberals attached a federal “hate crimes” bill to the DOD Authorization Bill.

William B. May of Catholics for the Common Good said that repealing DOMA will ultimately harm children:

It was disgusting to see adults trivialize marriage by bickering about benefits for gay couples while the rights and interests of children in the marriage of their mothers and fathers were being thrown under the bus.

Children have a right to know and be cared for by their mothers and fathers, and government has an obligation to promote the recognition of that right by encouraging men and women to marry before having children. But "marriage equality" says it should be discriminatory to promote marriage between a man and a woman as having any unique value or benefit for children and society. That is a lie.

Today, Senator Feinstein and the other 9 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee made a statement that the government has no interest in the only institution that not only unites a man and a woman with each other, but with any children born from their union.

…

But that can't happen unless we are willing to make sacrifices, change our personal priorities, and roll up our sleeves to build the army needed to take back marriage and family. This is not like any other army because this is an army of love, walking with Christ, in solidarity with the increasing number of children who are deprived of marriage mothers and fathers, and young people who are receiving a corrupted understanding of love and sexuality. This undermines their ability to form healthy stable relationships that lead to marriage as the foundation of the family. This is a crisis that is effecting almost every family.

Several weeks ago, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins hosted a press briefing at the National Press Club to discuss just what it is that the Religious Right is seeking in a Republican presidential nominee.

During the Q&A, Perkins was asked to discuss the idea that the very positions that make a candidate appealing to the Religious Right are the same positions that make such candidates unappealing to the general voting population.

Not surprisingly, Perkins took issue with that assessment and asserted instead that without the support of the Religious Right, no Republican candidate can hope to win the general elections and pointed to John McCain as proof:

This idea that a candidate that would be supported by social conservatives that would win the Republican nomination would be unacceptable to the general populace is just not true. I think the opposite it true; we saw that in the last election cycle. There was a Republican nomination that was not acceptable to social conservatives. He did not have the enthusiastic support of social conservatives and, as a result, the Republicans lost the general election.

Now, obviously McCain and the Religious Right had a rather contentious history, but to say that the McCain campaign did not receive the "enthusiastic support of social conservatives" requires one to completely ignore the rapturous lovefest that exploded when McCain announced the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, which we chronicled at the time:

James Dobson, Focus on the Family: "A lot of people were praying, and I believe Sarah Palin is God's answer.”

Tony Perkins, Family Research Council: “Senator McCain made an outstanding pick.”

Janet Folger, Faith2Action: “[T]he selection of Sarah Palin is more than ‘Brilliant!’ ‘Electrifying!’ and ‘Energizing!’ The selection of Sarah Palin will lead to words like: ‘Rejuvenating!’ ‘Victory!’ and ‘Landslide!’"

Janice Shaw Crouse, CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute: “She is an outstanding woman who will be an excellent role model for the nation's young people.”

David Barton, Wallbuilders: "The talk won't be about, 'look at Sarah Palin' as much as 'look at what McCain's choice of Palin says about McCain's core beliefs.”

Jonathan Falwell: “John McCain made it very clear that his administration was going to be a pro-life administration, and he proved that’s his belief and his passion today with the choice of Sarah Palin.”

Jerry Falwell, Jr.: “I think it’s a brilliant choice.”

Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life: “And then when [Palin] was announced — it was like you couldn’t breathe. [We] were grabbing each other and jumping up and down.”

Gary Marx, Judicial Confirmation Network: "I can tell you that this pick tells millions in the base of the party that they can trust McCain. More specifically that they can trust him with Supreme Court picks and other key appointments’"

David Keene, American Conservative Union: “The selection of Governor Palin is great news for conservatives, for the party and for the country. I predict any conservatives who have been lukewarm thus far in their support of the McCain candidacy will work their hearts out between now and November for the McCain-Palin ticket."

If social conservatives were unenthusiastic about the McCain ticket last time around, some apparently forgot to tell all of these social conservatives who were gushing about just how thrilled they were.

Phyllis Schlafly is absolutely convinced that City University of New York professor Frances Fox Piven is responsible for turning Barack Obama into a socialist, telling Newsmax that Obama is now attempting to implement a strategy "to load so many people on welfare that he breaks the capitalist system" and turn America into a socialist nation.

This is "the most dangerous presidency we've ever had," Schalfly asserted, adding that she just hopes that the nation can survive until the next election because Obama is so beholden to the feminist movement that he made sure that most of the jobs created by the Stimulus Legislation went to women:

Yesterday on Eagle Forum Live, Phyllis Schlafly’s guest host Bill Borst and author J. R. Dunn discussed how liberalism is responsible for millions upon millions of deaths throughout the world and that because of the election of Barack Obama, the lethal ideology is going to take over America. Dunn was promoting his book “Death by Liberalism,” arguing that Rachel Carson, one of the forerunners of the modern environmental movement who has been demonized by the chemical industry, is “one of the few people along with Karl Marx who’s responsible for millions of deaths by writing a book alone.” Dunn and Borst agreed that liberals have no problem with the millions of people supposedly dying from their policies because it is simply “collateral damage”:

Borst: And they don’t seem to get bothered by that, it’s sort of like collateral damage in a war?

Dunn: It doesn’t impact. You can even bring this up to them and it’s kind of a shrug, like, so what?

Borst: Right, they treat life, you said, ‘malleable,’ right. I don’t think they really think people are important. It’s a form of socialism, that people exist for the good of the state, am I right?

Dunn: I would say so, it’s not even so much the state as for the good of the idea, liberalism has to survive. Everything else can go out the window.

Borst: You talk about Rachel Carlson in your book and ‘Silent Spring,’ I think that woman probably has more blood on her hands that any woman I can name, do you agree with that?

Dunn: The way I put it in the book is that she’s one of the few people along with Karl Marx who’s responsible for millions of deaths by writing a book alone.

Borst: Americans are taught not to judge, right? Does that help liberalism? Does that help advance the liberal cause? In other words, we’re taught not to search for motivations, don’t judge motivations

Dunn: I would say it does.

Borst: See what I’m working I think these people know exactly what they’re doing, I think they know people will die, and as you said before I think they’re very cavalier and don’t really care.

Dunn: Collateral damage.

Borst: Exactly.

Dunn: Collateral damage. It’s something we can live with. One of the saying that they like that they don’t speak too loudly in public is, ‘you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.’

Borst: So I guess my point is, have we crossed that line? With these people working actively.

Dunn: That’s a good question. That’s one thing that we wouldn’t find out about until its twenty years on.

Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum today republished a blog post by Elwood Sanders of Virginia Right calling for an effort to put Schlafly on a U.S. postage stamp. Sanders’ proposal is in response to a new campaign by the U.S. Postal Service, which is soliciting suggestions for living people to put on postage stamps. Schlafly was instrumental in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and even today continues her role as a leading anti-feminist and ultraconservative activist. Michele Bachmann recently hailed Schlafly as “my heroine and my example” and “the most important woman in the United States in the last one hundred years.” Sanders says Schlafly deserves “the honor of being one of the first living persons on an American postage stamp” because she stopped “social engineering by liberals”:

Apparently in a furtive effort to save the Postal Service, they have removed the restriction on living persons being on postage stamps. I suppose I should protest – more opportunity for nonsense if we remove the ban: Kim and Khloe on a stamp in all their curvy glory? (On second thought, that might indeed save the USPS but the crowd of preteen and teenage boys might overwhelm the ability of the post offices to serve!) Of course Kim and Khloe might be preferable to the notorious communist Paul Robeson being placed on a postage stamp!

So I hereby suggest we nominate the great heroine of the social conservative movement: Phyllis Schlafly.

When I was a teenager, it looked like the ERA would become the law of the land. Do you remember, readers who are close to my age:

• Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
• Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
• Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Need I say more how pernicious that language would have been in our Constitution? Social Engineering by liberals and courts would have been the law of the land.

…

I would when the time comes formally nominate Schlafly for the honor of being one of the first living persons on an American postage stamp. She clearly deserves it. I’ll have to get a sheet of her stamps!

Family Research Council Action, the political arm of the Family Research Council, just announced that Texas Gov. Rick Perry will address the upcoming Values Voter Summit in Washington. As Religious Right leaders continue to coalesce behind Perry — FRC president Tony Perkins was among those attending a pro-Perry gathering of conservative leaders at James Leninger’s ranch earlier this month — addressing the Values Voter Summit should only help his standing among social conservatives. Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are the only other presidential candidates who have so far committed to the event. Other Religious Right leaders scheduled to speak include Gary Bauer, Brent Bozell, Mathew Staver, Phyllis Schlafly and Bill Bennett, along with lesser known but radical activists like Lila Rose, Jerry Boykin and Star Parker:

Family Research Council Action (FRC Action) has confirmed that GOP presidential candidate Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) will speak at the Values Voter Summit this October 7-9 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Gov. Perry joins other Republican presidential candidates, including U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), at the largest annual gathering of pro-family activists in the nation's capital.

The annual event, which is expected to draw 2,000 grassroots activists from across the country, will have a speaker line-up that includes House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Steve King (R-IA), Dr. Bill Bennett, Mark Levin, Lt. Gen. William Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.), Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, Erick Erickson, Ed Morrissey, Heritage Foundation fellow Edwin Meese III, Lila Rose and Phyllis Schlafly. The 2011 Values Voter Summit is cosponsored by AFA Action, American Values, The Heritage Foundation, Liberty University, and Liberty Counsel. A presidential straw poll, exhibit hall, book signings, breakout sessions and much more will be packed into this three-day conference. On Saturday evening Family Research Council will award Heritage Foundation fellow Edwin Meese, III with its 2011 Vision and Leadership Award.

Phyllis Schlafly is a longtime critic of the National Education Association and LGBT rights, and today in The Phyllis Schlafly Report she ridicules the teachers’ union’s endorsement of resolutions calling for a safe and diverse work environment and opposing discrimination against LGBT school employees, families and students. While Schlafly mainly lists excerpts from the NEA, she dubs their anti-discrimination policies as “radical” and leaves no confusion over where she stands:

Eagle Forum always sends an observer to the annual convention of the National Education Association to report on its radical resolutions. The NEA usually has about 20 resolutions endorsing the gay rights agenda, often using the code word "diversity." Here are some excerpts from pro-gay resolutions adopted this year by the National Education Association.

Resolution B-14, for example, states that "discrimination and stereotyping based on ... sexual orientation, [and] gender identification ... must be eliminated" and that these factors must not affect the legal rights of "partners in ... civil unions ... in regard to ... medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, and immigration." School "activities, and programs must increase respect, understanding, acceptance, and sensitivity toward individuals and groups in a diverse society composed of ... gays, lesbians, bisexuals, [and] transgender persons." The NEA believes that "students who are struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identification" must be provided by the school with "counseling services." Another NEA resolution declared that hiring policies and practices must be nondiscriminatory and include provisions for the recruitment of a diverse teaching staff so that public schools "Offer ... diverse role models" among teachers, ... and education employees."

NEA Resolutions for the classroom demand that the schools "Eliminate ... stereotyping in curricula, textbooks, resource and instructional materials, [and activities" and "Integrate an accurate portrayal of the roles and contributions of all groups throughout history across curricula, particularly groups that have been under-represented historically." Another resolution urges the use of Multicultural education because it "should ... reduce ... homophobia ... and all other forms of prejudice, and discrimination."

Just so you will know -- these are the stated beliefs of the biggest teachers union.

A few weeks we wrote a post noting that, at her core, Michele Bachmann was just a Religious Right activist who got elected to Congress and now hopes to become president.

In that post, we compared Bachmann to fringe right-wing activist Janet Porter but it would probably have been more accurate to compare her to Phyllis Schlafly, as that is what Bachmann herself did on a recent "Tea Party Cyber-Town Hall and Webcast" where she lauded Schlafly as her heroine, mentor and everything that Bachmann hopes to be while also calling her the most important woman in the US in the last century:

If I could just say a couple of words about Phyllis Schafly, she is my heroine and my example as a forerunner. As a young bride and a young mother, I read faithfully "The Phyllis Schlafly Report;" she was my lifeline to what was happening in the world.

She truly is the mother of the modern conservative movement ... I think she is the most important woman in the United States in the last one hundred years.

Whatever Phyllis Schlafly says, it's important that we listen because she's there on every issue, on every front. She is our hero, our heroine, our stalwart and I absolutely adore her. So God bless you, my dear mentor and the person that I hope to be some day. So thank you very much, Phyllis.

Over the last week Kyle has been rebuttingclaims by some journalists and Religious Right activists that Dominionism, which contends that fundamentalist Christians must take ‘dominion’ over society and government, is nothing more than a liberal conspiracy. Dominionism has been gaining attention as Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry’s close ties with outspoken propagators of the radical dominionist ideology come to light.

As Kyle noted last week, Pat Robertson denied knowing anything about Dominionism, even though he delivered a speech where he urged his audience to “get ready to take dominion!” and Matt Barber of Liberty University School of Law called it a “scary Christian monster that lives under liberals’ beds,” despite the fact the Liberty University School of Law sponsored DeMar’s conference last year, called "2010 Sovereignty and Dominion conference — Biblical Blueprints for Victory!" In fact, the Communications Director of Truth In Action Ministries, which until recently was called Coral Ridge Ministries, claimed that “dominionism is a sham charge-one reserved for Christians on the right,” even though prominent dominionist Janet Porter was once the head of a Coral Ridge Ministries affiliate. So if domininionism doesn’t exist and is merely a construct of the left, then why was Porter fired by two conservative Christian radio stations for promoting…“dominionism”?

Last year, Voice of Christian Youth America (VCY America) fired Porter because of what they called the “drift of [Porter’s] program toward ‘dominion theology.’” VCY America says it is dedicated to “featuring solid Bible teaching programs” and features conservative programming like ‘The Phyllis Schlafly Report’ and ‘Freedom’s Call,’ Liberty Counsel’s radio bulletin.

Listen to VCY’s decision on Porter’s firing, which states that “VCY America does not believe in Dominion theology or waging spiritual war for the establishment of an earthly kingdom of power, that is dominion theology and it is being promoted by many who are guided by their own dreams and visions and not necessarily the Word of God”:

VCY America wasn’t the only Christian radio station to fire Porter for promoting dominionism. Worldview Radio also dropped Porter for promoting “Dominion theology” and working “with the Dominion theory theology people” during her May Day prayer rally.

Surely, Barber can ask Porter herself why she was fired, since she was a featured speaker at Liberty Counsel’s Awakening 2011 and Liberty Counsel sponsored Porter’s How To Take Back America conference. Or ask Dominionism’s many conservative critics.

When Sarah Palin was chosen as the GOP nominee for vice president, Phyllis Schlafly hailed her as a role model of the non-feminist woman who by her very existence discredited the women’s movement. Feminists “are really spooked by Palin because she’s done everything and she is a success,” Schlafly said, “besides she is pretty and they cannot stand her.”

Now that Palin’s star has significantly subsided and she has become one of the most unpopular politicians in America, Schlafly’s niece Suzanne Venker is crowning Michele Bachmann as the new conservative woman who destroyed feminism. Venker, who co-authored The Flipside of Feminism with Schlafly, told James Dobson that women shouldn’t pursue challenging professions like brain surgery because it might prevent them from having children.

In an article for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today, Venker lauded Bachmann for showing the bright side of biblical “submission” and proving that the women’s movement has contributed nothing beneficial to society. Venker writes that for “the first time in decades, the liberal feminist establishment is up against something new: outspoken conservative women who undermine the feminist agenda.” But haven’t conservative women, like say, Phyllis Schlafly, been involved in politics for decades?

Venker argues that now Bachmann is being unfairly depicted as “a religious nut and a doormat,” and says a man would never be asked about biblical submission (not so). And even though Bachmann may be one of the easiest GOP candidates for President Obama to defeat, Venker says that she is actually making liberals run scared:

For 40 years, this country has endured a social movement that has been relentless in its goals. Women on the left believe the feminist movement is responsible for liberating women from constricted lives; women on the right see things differently. Feminists are consumed with their place in society; conservative women are not. They are especially uninterested in fighting a gender war. That's why the Submission Question could be asked only of a conservative female candidate. It's women on the right, we're told, who want to keep women in their place. Conservative women are anti-woman.

So what to do when faced with a female candidate who's conservative and popular? Why, portray her as a religious nut and a doormat, of course! Indeed, feminists know most women won't identify with that kind of woman. And they're right: they won't. Women on the left don't appreciate that traditional values, even Biblical values, are not at odds with female empowerment. No matter what you think of Bachmann or Sarah Palin, these women have proved this in spades. No one gets to their position by being oppressed or mousy.

For the first time in decades, the liberal feminist establishment is up against something new: outspoken conservative women who undermine the feminist agenda. Conservative women are supposed to stay home! Conservative women are supposed to lead nice, traditional lives: raise a gaggle of children, be subordinate to their husbands and stay out of the public sphere. Why are they asserting their independent minds?

…

The implication that Michele Bachmann is a Stepford wife in disguise was a pitiful attempt to bring down a female conservative candidate who has sinned in the worst way possible: She does not carry the feminist torch. And, yet, she still won the Iowa straw poll.

Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has touted Oral Roberts University law professor John Eidsmoe as her mentor and guide, bolstering her already impeccable credentials with Religious Right voters. Profiles by writers such as Ryan Lizza and Michelle Goldberg offered further insight into how Eidsmoe shaped Bachmann’s thinking, and highlighted some of Eidsmoe’s more controversial views, such as his commitment to biblical government and belief that the abolition of slavery was devastating for African Americans. In an interview with Lizza, Eidsmoe said that he thinks Bachmann mirrors the political views he outlined, and Bachmann told an Iowa pastor conference that Eidsmoe was “one of the professors who had a great influence on me” who is “absolutely brilliant.”

In 1984 Eidsmoe wrote God & Caesar, which is essentially a manual to why and how Christians should work in politics and government. Eidsmoe dedicated the book to his children, “in the hope that their generation will more fully implement biblical norms and standards.” In the book, Eidsmoe finds that the biblical view and the conservative agenda virtually always coincide, while the liberal position represents the rejection of God and godly principles. No matter the issue, economic, social, family, law, and foreign policy, Eidsmoe finds that conservatives are always on the right side of the Bible while liberals are on the side of godlessness.

As Julie Ingersoll writes in Religion Dispatches, Eidsmoe is a proponent of Christian Reconstructionism, a philosophy designed by R. J. Rushdoony that wants America governed according to Biblical law.

Eidsmoe frequently promotes Rushdoony in God & Caesar and his dominionist teachings about the role of “God’s Word” in the political field:

God’s Word has a lot to say about government, about crime and punishment, about abortion, about national defense, about war and peace, about the many political issues that face us daily. Paul declared that he had ‘not shunned to declare unto all the counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27). The fundamentalist who refuses to preach or consider what God’s Word has to say about politics is not declaring the whole counsel of God and has a serious gap in his ministry. R. J. Rushdoony put it well when he said,

Man must exercise dominion in the name of God, and in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness…. The world, moreover, cannot be surrendered to Satan. It is God’s world and must be brought under God’s law politically, economically, and in every other way possible. The Enlightenment, by its savage and long-standing attack on Biblical faith, has brought about a long retreat of Christianity from a full-orbed faith to a king of last-ditch battle centering around the doctrines of salvation and of the infallible Scripture. The time has come for a full-scale offensive, and it has indeed begun, to bring every area of thought into captivity to Christ, to establish the whole counsel of God and every implication of His infallible word. (p. 56)

Eidsmoe believes that God brings people into the political arena and then uses them to enforce his will. He cites right-wing activist Phyllis Schlafly as one such leader that God used to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, and Texas activists Mel and Norma Gabler to “analyze and critique textbooks and expose humanist, anti-Christian, immoral, or anti-American content. I’m sure the Gablers never dreamed God would use them like that” (p. 60).

He goes on to say that America is facing “political and economic decline” as a result of “moral decay” and God’s judgment because of the government’s failure to embrace biblical law. Eidsmoe argues that unless Christians that follow his Reconstructionist positions enter politics, God will judge America in the same way he judged Judah before exiling the Jews to Babylon:

We should add that this political and economic decline is a natural and logical consequence, but it is also a supernatural consequence. It is the result of God’s judgment (Leviticus 26:14-29).

I believe the political and economic decline that grips America today is the result of moral decay. I believe God is calling upon believers today to lead the spiritual awakening that can overcome that moral lapse. That’s how believers can truly be the salt of the earth, preserving their nation from divine judgment.

After decrying the sin of Judah, their oppression and robbery, their vexation of the poor and needy and the sojourner, God declared in Ezekiel 22:30, ‘And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it.’

God is looking for believers today to ‘stand in the gap,’ to assert themselves in the political arena and transform America’s political institutions.

But I omitted the last four words of that verse: ‘…but I found none.’ The Lord continued in the next verse, ‘Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord God.’

God’s judgment indeed came upon Judah: seventy years of exile in Babylon.

That was true of Judah. I pray it won’t be true of America. Will you do your part, as others have done theirs? (p. 68)

Eagle Forum’s Phyllis Schlafly wants Congress to hold up the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act until it is altered so that it doesn’t benefit women. Schlafly, a long-time critic of the landmark law who believes that married women cannot be raped by their husbands, contends that the Violence Against Women Act goes too far in protecting women from abusive spouses and that the law is merely a feminist plot to tear down men:

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for reauthorization, is in major need of revision. Its billion-dollar-a-year price tag spent by the radical feminists to pursue their ideology and goals (known as feminist pork) make it an embarrassment to members of Congress who voted for it.

For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: Men are naturally batterers, and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).

Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men.

…

Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty and in many cases are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.

Legal assistance is customarily provided to women but not to men. Men ought to be entitled to equal protection of the law because many charges are felonies and could result in prison and loss of money, job and reputation.

Feminist recipients of VAWA handouts lobby legislators, judges and prosecutors on the taxpayers' dime (which is contrary to Section 1913 of Title 18, U.S. Code), and the results are generally harmful to all concerned. This lobbying has resulted in laws calling for mandatory arrest (i.e., the police must arrest someone – guess who) of the predominant aggressor (i.e., ignore the facts and assume the man is the aggressor) and no-drop prosecution (i.e., prosecute the man even if the woman has withdrawn her accusation or refuses to testify).

Having just received it, I have not yet had an opportunity to read it, but I will be providing updates as I make my way through it.

Kern made a name for herself by declaring that "homosexual agenda is destroying this nation ... it's the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam."

That, of course, made Kern a hero to the Religious Right and many of those leaders provided glowing blurbs for her book, including Tony Perkins, Phyllis Schlafly, William Federer, David Barton, Paul Blair, Dick Bott ... and none other than Anita Bryant:

I was before her time, but Sally Kern is here for such a time as this. I am grateful for her life and her friendship. Reading The Stoning of Sally Kern was at times like déjà vu, reminding me of my stand in Dade County in 1977. I can highly recommend this book to anyone who loves God, their family, and their country. It is a must-read for any believing woman or man who wants to make a difference in these perilous times. Those soldiers who have counted the cost of character assassination or endured other losses yet are willing to take a stand in truth and love for the glory of God, our children, and future generations will especially enjoy this inspiring book.

Phyllis Schlafly is out with another article on the rise of single motherhood. According to Schlafly, the usual culprits are to blame: feminists, Barack Obama, ‘big government,’ and gay people who want the right to marry. Schlafly also says that single motherhood is increasing and marriage is declining because the legalization of abortion is “diminishing the custom of shotgun marriages, which in earlier years was often the response to surprise pregnancies.” Schlafly’s nostalgia for forced marriages shouldn’t be a surprise, as she is also a long-time apologist for marital rape.

Prior to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty, husbands and fathers provided for their families. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock babies born last year and their unmarried moms now look to Big Brother as their financial provider.

The left is content to let this problem persist because 70 percent of unmarried women voted for Barack Obama for president. They vote for the party that offers the richer subsidies.

…

Among other unfortunate effects, the trends toward non-marriage and toward same-sex marriage are a direct attack on fathers. The bond between a child and his mother is an obvious fact of nature, but marriage is the relationship that establishes the link between a child and his father.

There are many causes for the dramatic reduction in marriage, starting with unilateral divorce, which spread across the United States in the 1960s and '70s, putting government on the side of marriage breakup. Then came the legalizing of abortion, diminishing the custom of shotgun marriages, which in earlier years was often the response to surprise pregnancies.

The feminist notion that women should be independent of men, followed by affirmative-action/female quotas in employment, tended to carry out the goal stated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker "must be eliminated." These feminist ideas and practices demean marriage by discriminating against men and also against fulltime homemakers.

For the last two days, James Dobson has dedicated his "Family Talk" radio program to interviewing Phyllis Schlafly and her niece, Suzanne Venker, about their new book "The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know -- and Men Can't Say."

While Schlafly was her usual cranky and out-of-touch self, rambling on about how all feminists had horrible childhoods and hate men and babies and husbands shouldn't be expected to change diapers, Venker was the voice of today's modern anti-feminist ... the sort who tells her eleven year-old daughter not to become a brain surgeon because it'll interfere with her baby-making:

The other, very taboo thing to say to young women is "you need to look for a man who can support you." And the reason why you want to do that is not because you're never going to make your own money and go out into the world; it's because you're going to hit a point - particularly in those years when the children are not in school, the first five years - when you are not going to want to be bothered with making an income because you're going to want to be with those babies.

So that doesn't mean you have to find a rich man, it just means you have to find somebody who is ambitious and capable of holding down a job and finding a path that is consistent and where he does not flounder.

Another point is why I say the reality is there are going to be some careers that are probably not going to be good options for you as a woman. I have an eleven year-old daughter and if we got into the conversation of what am I going to be in X number of years and she comes to me and says "Mom, I want to be a brain surgeon," I would ask her "Okay, is there anything else that you want in your life?"

And if she presumably then says "well, I'd like to get married and have children too," I'd say "then you'd probably better pick something else." And here's why: these two things are going to conflict majorly. You're going to spend ten years preparing for this major life as a brain surgeon - which is one kind of life, all consuming - and then right as your body is winding down biologically, you want to get married and have children. That ain't gonna work.

Phyllis Schlafly Posts Archive

How should Catholics "respond to the possibility and growing concern that Pope Francis might be the False Prophet" foretold in the Bible? Pornography addicts are "lower than the pagans" because "they fall from worship of a transcendent being to that of mere created things and sink yet lower into disordered passions, violence and degradation." FRC prays: "May God stir the people in 'pro-abortion' states! May they choose leaders, who like America's Founders will uphold the right to life as an unalienable right given to all by our Creator... MORE >

Phyllis Schlafly has latched onto the news from December that the Marine Corps is delaying its toughened pull-up requirement for women, part of the preparation for allowing women to serve in combat roles.
The delay does not mean that the Marines have lowered the strength standard for people going into combat, but don’t tell that to Schlafly. In her radio commentary on Friday, the Eagle Forum founder declared that “women in combat are a danger to themselves and also to the rest of the unit” because “lowering our strength standards sends a message to the world that our... MORE >

In a speech today to Breitbart News’ alternative CPAC conference today, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly reminisced about her early work pushing immigration restrictions, boasting that she was active in promoting the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act as member of Daughters of the American Revolution.
“The DAR at that time was a strong, pro-American organization,” she said.
We aren’t sure how Schlafly thinks that DAR has become less “pro-American” in the past 60 years. But we will note one way in which the organization has changed dramatically: while by... MORE >

Phyllis Schlafly is locked in a copyright battle over her last name with her own
nephew. Speaking of Schlafly, she continues to warn that "if we admit so many big-government immigrants, we won't be able to continue our
system of limited government." "Coach" Dave Daubenmire seems to believe that if the world doesn't hate you, you are not being a
very good Christian. Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit will receive the Reed Irvine Award for New
Media at CPAC. Finally, documents suggest that Mark Driscoll's
church bought up thousands... MORE >

Eagle Forum head Phyllis Schlafly is quite taken with right-wing pundit Stan Solomon, and last week hailed an unhinged rant Solomon delivered against Muslim-Americans and President Obama.
“I don’t really give a damn if there are any Muslims here but if they are here and they don’t want to be Americans, then get the hell out, and the same for any other group,” Solomon said, before railing against the president. “Barack Obama is not an American, never has been, not in his actions, not in his speech, not in his politics and not in his birth.”
“And not... MORE >

In an interview late last month with Stan Solomon of the Talk to Solomon Show, Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly agreed with Solomon’s suggestion that President Obama’s opponents “should be at least as strong as the Ukrainians” and march on Washington to depose the current government.
“If we would have not 100,000 but 100 million march on Washington and say, ‘No way,’ I don’t think our military and the few pitiful police they have there wouldn’t be able to stop us,” Solomon said. “I don’t think our military would... MORE >

The FCC has pulled the plug on its press study after the right-wing ginned up a completely bogus freak-out over it. Phil Burress
says there is no way that Hillary Clinton will be elected president: "I just cannot see her being
the next president of the United States knowing what we know about her." "Coach" Dave
Daubenmire asks "Is the Bible the New Porn?"
Phyllis Schlafly complains that gay rights are now trumping the First Amendment. Finally, Todd Starnes can't even make it through
a two minute book promo without lying, twice... MORE >

RWW’s Paranoia-Rama takes a look at five of the week’s most absurd conspiracy theories from the Right.
This week, we learn that NFL prospect Michael Sam helped usher in the reign of the Antichrist by coming out of the closet, although apparently the Devil already controls the United Nations.
5. Satan Behind United Nations
The United Nations released a report this month that is heavily critical of the Roman Catholic Church’s handling of sex abuse cases. Church spokesmen were outraged by the scope of the study. “The range of the report appeared to infuriate the... MORE >